The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

9 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Paid editing, finally gets a full discussion
Cla68
post Thu 11th June 2009, 8:52pm
Post #41


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 11th June 2009, 2:19pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 11th June 2009, 9:06am) *
How do I write (and publish) this article in such a way that it passes WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and all the other WP:things, while simultaneously NOT DRAWING THE ATTENTION OF THE HIVE?

Guess what? The articles that result are pretty bland, not puff pieces, quite encyclopedic, and (ever since I learned this technique) 100% durable within Wikipedia -- with surprisingly little follow-up maintenance, and likewise lasting appreciation of my clients.

Well, I would have pointed that out too, but I didn't want to give away any trade secrets! smile.gif

But yes, I believe you're absolutely right - a "paid editor" is going to have a huge incentive to produce highly-finished articles on practically the initial (new-page) edit (so as to avoid attention from RC patrollers), keep his/her head down in general, and not get into serious arguments with anyone over anything, if at all possible. Whereas someone who's known to be getting paid who is also argumentative and "tendentious" probably isn't going to be getting paid for long, and should probably look for a new line of work.


This is my point exactly. Openly POV-pushing advocates of a certain position, person, or organization, like Jayjg or Jossi, eventually get noticed, dealt with, and their articles receive a lot of negative attention and scrutiny. That's why it would be best for a paid editor to make sure that the article follows Wikipedia's rules to the "T".

I suspect that Shankbone supports paid editing because he wants to actually be paid for doing it. Well, that goes for me too. As long as he or anyone else follows the rules, I don't care. This comment on the subject is a good one.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Thu 11th June 2009, 8:53pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Thu 11th June 2009, 9:20pm
Post #42


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I think it's kinda weird that you guys can't figure out where this is going — after all this time observing the Wiki-Wiles of Wiki-Wales.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cla68
post Thu 11th June 2009, 9:23pm
Post #43


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 11th June 2009, 9:20pm) *

I think it's kinda weird that you guys can't figure out where this is going — after all this time observing the Wiki-Wiles of Wiki-Wales.


Well, I noticed that Jimbo apparently feels that its ok for himself to openly try to make money off of Wikipedia, but no one else should be allowed to, if that's what you mean.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Thu 11th June 2009, 9:30pm
Post #44


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 11th June 2009, 5:23pm) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 11th June 2009, 9:20pm) *

I think it's kinda weird that you guys can't figure out where this is going — after all this time observing the Wiki-Wiles of Wiki-Wales.


Well, I noticed that Jimbo apparently feels that its ok for himself to openly try to make money off of Wikipedia, but no one else should be allowed to, if that's what you mean.


Okay, you get some sh*nkbonus points for that. Naturally, a few crumbs of wiki-privilege will be doled out to MIGS of the wiki-palace guard. And the standards on paid editing, like the standards on all other Auto-Promo and COI, will always be kept fuzzy enough to be doubled — excused for the in-group of wiki-pets and used against folks who suddenly find themselves on the way out.

Jon
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cock-up-over-conspiracy
post Fri 12th June 2009, 2:02am
Post #45


Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined: Sat 6th Dec 2008, 6:08am
Member No.: 9,267



QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 11th June 2009, 9:30pm) *
I think it's kinda weird that you guys can't figure out where this is going — after all this time observing the Wiki-Wiles of Wiki-Wales.

Going back to the 'Cult Theory of Wikipedia Involvement' ... most if not all cults are financial pyramid scams where a few at the top gain all the benefits of the money and free labor donated by the massed followers. Sauce for the goose is not for the ganders.

In pyramid scams, generally a few carrots of "success cases" are dangled to encourage on the drones ... "you too could be in on this tomorrow, if you kiss our asses today and don't challenge the status quo" ... but basic arithmetics, and social entropy combined, ensure that in the 'numbers game' it is only a tiny minority can or will ever make it into the power, money, free sex or whatever else it is they are are into.

It works this way for gurus and it works this way for multi-level marketing outfits. Who else remembers the "airplane scams" back in the 1980's? I am thinking right now that for many, as in other cults, the 'hook' in the Wikipedia beyond merely acting out are the "free drugs" ... the adrenal or endomorphin rushes involved in.

So the hamsters on the wheel now want free drugs AND the right to be sponsored by corporations outside of the cage for running on their wheels ... Good heavens, what is the world coming to!?! It is the Wiki equivalent of athletic doping. Luckily for the Wiki Pee Foundation, most hamster-drones are genetically pre-programmed by generations of serfdom and bound by fatal idealism to the degree that they would never consider expecting a payback.

(Free) Work makes free.

Is the Wikipedia, even as an "amateur sport", a level playing field as it is ...? No, of course not. Time is money is power and the more you have to invest, the more you get. Its level is already determined by finances, (e.g. class, race, access to IT equipment and internet), where irresponsibility (a life without serious responsibilities) is more highly rewarded ... as in most cults. Don't cults mostly divide families and split partnerships demanding increased involvement to reach higher levels?

But no one seems to have raise the issue of more subtle "payments" ... e.g. PR sponsorship, professional advancements etc.

I suspect the "under table reference" refers to dick sucking on knees ... or do I just have a dirty mind?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Fri 12th June 2009, 2:22am
Post #46


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Thu 11th June 2009, 10:02pm) *

I suspect the "under table reference" refers to dick sucking on knees … or do I just have a dirty mind?


It is not without its perils to Sucker and Suckee alike —

As testefrayed by ''The World According To Grawp" …

Ja Ja boing.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Joy
post Fri 12th June 2009, 2:29am
Post #47


I am a millipede! I am amazing!
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 2:25am
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982



Ah, Jimbo's response to Rootology is great. laugh.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=295613874
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Fri 12th June 2009, 3:18am
Post #48


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



And, in typical Wikipedia fashion, when the vote is going against you, go get a discussion going somewhere else on Wikipedia.

All this talkie, talkie, talkie; but meanwhile, the paid editors (if they know what they're doing) are paying no attention whatsoever to these new policy developments, because no matter what outcome finally develops, the smart paid editors are just going to keep doing their paid editing the old-fashioned way -- under the table.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Fri 12th June 2009, 3:31am
Post #49


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 11th June 2009, 1:52pm) *
I suspect that Shankbone supports paid editing because he wants to actually be paid for doing it. Well, that goes for me too. As long as he or anyone else follows the rules, I don't care. This comment on the subject is a good one.

Good luck herding those cats. evilgrin.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cock-up-over-conspiracy
post Fri 12th June 2009, 12:29pm
Post #50


Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined: Sat 6th Dec 2008, 6:08am
Member No.: 9,267



QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 11th June 2009, 1:52pm) *
I suspect that Shankbone supports paid editing because he wants to actually be paid for doing it.

Excuse me if I appear to beating my drum (rather than anything else to hand) ... but this link is exactly what I would define as "under the table" and on one's knees ...
Until WP:JIMBO is repealed, WP:JIMBO stands. -->David Shankbone 17:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC).

QUOTE(David Shankbone) *
To be fair, you made a relatively strong WP:JIMBO statement when you said,

"I will personally block any cases that I am shown. There are of course some possibly interesting alternatives, not particularly relevant here, but the idea that we should ever accept paid advocates directly editing Wikipedia is not every going to be ok. Consider this to be policy as of right now."

-->David Shankbone 16:45, 10 June 2009(UTC)

Now what makes it more interesting is that, surely, he must know through NYB and the official (New York Wikipedia Foundation and others about the Israeli government sponsorships of David 'Shankbone' Miller, and all those juicy shmoosing opportunities with Rushdie, Auster, Amos, Sharon et al ... even if the fruit it bore was only Zionist goat piss pictures and a few badly photographed gay clubs.

I don't see Jimbo handing out blocks over that ... surely that is "pay for point of view" (PPOV). Or is this an example of the "interesting alternatives, not particularly relevant here" ... because, perhaps, they also bore fruit for the Foundation, e.g. the conference in Israel?

I dont know ... but it makes me wonder, as in "we will turn a blind eye and let you get away with it, because there was a buck in it and more for us coming our ways"?

I think paid editing for a chosen *undisclosed* few ... never mind the sort of POV that Shanker came up with over that Palestinian kids playing with guns ... is bound to cause rot unless is transparent and clearly account for. But "for a chosen few" is what obvious stands at present.

At the very least, surely they ought to have a note on their edits saying, "Wiki-whore for rent" or "Sponsored by ..." or something?

Image

Its not that I am saying that prostitution is wrong ... I just would not want by kids playing in the same street as they work.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Fri 12th June 2009, 12:29pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cock-up-over-conspiracy
post Sat 13th June 2009, 1:54am
Post #51


Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined: Sat 6th Dec 2008, 6:08am
Member No.: 9,267



FayssalF (T-C-L-K-R-D) leads the 'charge' (ho ... ho ... ho ...) with a page for Wikipedia:Contract_Editing_Review.

Still no apparent discussion about heavy weight financial sponsorship deals and offers of professional advancement ... such as the Israel government's splashing about its PR budget on "leading Wikipedian" David 'Shankbone' Miller in the hope of a Wikipedia-sized money shot all over the face of Google.

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Sat 13th June 2009, 1:56am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Sat 13th June 2009, 4:26am
Post #52


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Fri 12th June 2009, 9:54pm) *

FayssalF (T-C-L-K-R-D) leads the 'charge' (ho ... ho ... ho ...) with a page for Wikipedia:Contract_Editing_Review.


You're not even reading my posts, are you, Cock-up?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
trenton
post Sat 13th June 2009, 5:11am
Post #53


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri 12th Sep 2008, 10:21pm
Member No.: 8,237



QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 11th June 2009, 9:06am) *

That's why Jimmy Wales is such a one-dimensionally thinking man, that he feels the need to frame my work as "paid shill" and the like.


I think it's more projection. When you sockpuppet, you're likely to see sockpuppets everywhere. When you stalk other people's edits, you're more like to assume that others are stalking you. When you shill, you're more likely to assume that others are shills too.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cock-up-over-conspiracy
post Sat 13th June 2009, 8:18am
Post #54


Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined: Sat 6th Dec 2008, 6:08am
Member No.: 9,267



QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 13th June 2009, 4:26am) *
You're not even reading my posts, are you, Cock-up?

Ah, come on. You missed the chance for a good pun, I took it ... "Paid ... charge ... " etc.

To be honest, I am not taking any position on this issue and, beyond a bit of sport, its really not worth engaging in. Nothing will change, it will just get worse.

I think that there is likely to be nothing 'evil' about doing an honest job, on a benign topic, inline with general journalistic ethics. I think the point David Shankbone made very badly ... thereby exposing his own values and morality ... is that we all do 'something' for 'something'; even if it is only an altruistic glow of self-satisfaction that gives us confidence in other areas of our lives.

However, I do think taking government or political money to alter cultural or national bias decided is. There is a reason that is disallowed or monitored closely in politics and mainstream media. Equally, I think allowing highly motivated but entirely indoctrinated and irresponsible individuals, whether Korean nationalists or cult members, to rip up the contents of other people's time, money and lives to suit their own guru's mania or personal psychoses, is also wrong.

In a perfect world, or even an acceptable world as with the politics of our day, at least one is able to demand and see on record 'who got what for what'. Our opinion formers are bound by law to disclose their interests. But how can that be fixed in the whacky, anonymous, unaccountable world of the Wiki-Pee Soup?

To me, it just appears to one big clusterfuck where you are encouraged to try and get away with whatever you can, for as long as you can, in manner possible and without little thought about others. Why should I try to be "good" when the system is run by and rewards crap? It is irrational. And, as we are talking money here, I suppose that is the capitalist model. If you can make a buck off it, do because sure as hell the opportunity wont last.

I pay for me to edit. We all do/did. There is a huge scale of difference between some individual just paying to have their hardware store on and a highly politicized entity paying to use the Piss Pee-dia to manipulate the collective consciousness of generations around the world.

This is why I keep asking ... why are they not talk about sponsorship deals like ones the Israeli government gave to Shankbones?

Don't they know?

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Sat 13th June 2009, 8:25am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Mon 15th June 2009, 2:05pm
Post #55


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



Our young Filipino chess guy who runs Yahoo! Answers and will show me no mercy ("My fellow Wikipedians, we should go for a war against Wikipedia Review. Prepare for glory!"), has decided to weigh in on the Paid Editing discussion.

His own quote is self-contradictory:

QUOTE
Anyone who would advertise paid editing of Wikipedia would lead the project into corruption. Why pay someone else if you can do it yourself? Wikipedia is open for everyone, without distinctions of any kind and without limitations in any manner.


Okay, so then why are you against the "everyone" that includes paid editors? Do you have any concept of what "without distinctions of any kind and without limitations in any manner" actually means?

Silly, ignorant teenager... so typical of the thought leadership at Wikipedia.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
CharlotteWebb
post Mon 15th June 2009, 8:12pm
Post #56


Postmaster General
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,740
Joined: Mon 18th Jun 2007, 2:09am
Member No.: 1,727

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 15th June 2009, 2:05pm) *

QUOTE
Anyone who would advertise paid editing of Wikipedia would lead the project into corruption. Why pay someone else if you can do it yourself? Wikipedia is open for everyone, without distinctions of any kind and without limitations in any manner.


Okay, so then why are you against the "everyone" that includes paid editors? Do you have any concept of what "without distinctions of any kind and without limitations in any manner" actually means?

Well I think this is based on the premise that accepting payment would require exploiting the client's ignorance of Wikipedia's editing model.

Of course that isn't necessarily true as the agent in question may instead be exploiting the client's inability to write coherently (or lack of time to spend on it), which isn't so much a problem by itself. In fact the former becomes less likely with time.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cock-up-over-conspiracy
post Tue 16th June 2009, 2:19am
Post #57


Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined: Sat 6th Dec 2008, 6:08am
Member No.: 9,267



Coming soon ... (especially if we purchase wikipedia-pornography.com) ...

A commercial break on behalf of 'Wikipedia Paid Editorial Enterprises, Inc' (aka Wiki-Pee-Pee, Inc).
Image


This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Tue 16th June 2009, 2:45am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Tue 16th June 2009, 2:24am
Post #58


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Mon 15th June 2009, 7:19pm) *

Image


Cock up, why don't you try Photobucket? Maybe in the middle of the night when their censors are asleep? happy.gif sleep.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Moulton
post Tue 16th June 2009, 2:56am
Post #59


Anthropologist from Mars
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,220
Joined: Mon 29th Oct 2007, 9:56pm
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 15th June 2009, 10:24pm) *
Cock up, why don't you try Photobucket? Maybe in the middle of the night when their censors are asleep? happy.gif sleep.gif

This is where I came in.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cock-up-over-conspiracy
post Tue 16th June 2009, 3:06am
Post #60


Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined: Sat 6th Dec 2008, 6:08am
Member No.: 9,267



I don't know Photobucket ...

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Mon 15th June 2009, 8:12pm) *
Of course that isn't necessarily true as the agent in question may instead be exploiting the client's inability to write coherently (or lack of time to spend on it)

Or it might just be a fair trade ... You probably did not mean "exploiting" in that manner. Far more exploitation is going on in the cultic 'unpaid model'. But for real life PR companies, buying Wikipedia time and expertise would be a very cheap and efficient bang for their bucks.

Part of the 'free market model' of society is that workers actually get paid for their labor, and part of the 'democratic model' of society is that they have some rights to the fruit of their labor.

It really is only the 'cultic religion model' that have such a disparity of incomes between the workers and the bosses, and offer no rights.

You can't eat barnstars, share them to your children, or even trade your admin status.

Has anyone started trading 'edit histories' yet? Its just another commodity after all.

Funny, but even your own editing history is not your own property on the Pee-dia.

I am thinking of mass producing edit histories in the Far East. In the meanwhile, let me buy yours ... 'Caucasian' edits are still more powerful and worth more than 'Asian' edits, currently, but in the future, as China comes online, that might change.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

9 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st 9 17, 2:05pm